Here's an Aboriginalised styled modern Australian Artwork.
Note how Aboriginal traditional style has transformed into modernism and with non-aboriginal styles of influence.

The Modern style of this has made Australian Art somewhat

'Reptillian'

in its nature - the Dot Styles have evolved a reptillian skin-like appearance.

Thoughts?

True. There is a lot of cliche and cliche in itself. That's where the Art world is at the moment. Australia needs to introduce a 'new' Art beyond the cliche.

Here's a better example of the Reptillian-skin style of Aboriginal Art.

Jasin wrote on Dec 26^th, 2020 at 10:54am:

https://bluethumb.com.au/blog/artists/10-best-emerging-landscape-artists-2020/

First encounter direct with this landscape by Sue Bannister had me wanting to walk into it.
Few landscapes have that effect upon me.

issuevoter wrote on Dec 28^th, 2020 at 5:39pm:


Own board ? Yes, but good luck trying to get one installed.

Strikes you as ‘a work of art’. Which leaves me wanting to know what your definitions of ’strikes’ and ‘work of art’ are.
I have no idea what you mean by “  . . . . . only created because someone thought they could manufacture a sense of inspiration. You cannot” Why can’t an artist inspire? I’m missing something here.

Maybe this will end up with one of those tedious discussions about what is the purpose of art.  As if there ever could be a single purpose.
Myself, I paint simply as a form of therapy with absolutely no intention of inspiring anyone or expecting them to ‘work’ at understanding anything I produce.Often I don’t understand the things I create myself no matter how hard I ‘work’.
If my output is buried with me big deal. Anyhow, why should art have any single, simple purpose? It’s an idea I can’t get my head around. Possibly we can claim there are some purposes art shouldn’t aim at such as propaganda but where do we draw the line? (pun intended! ) A large percentage of religious art is a form of propaganda but does that mean we shouldn’t be able to enjoy it even if we don’t accept the dogma behind it?
This brings me to the question of skill. Today we witness large amounts of minimalist art demonstrating a total lack of technical skill. In some instances the lack of skill in abstract paintings produced over the last fifty years or so means they are literally self-destructing. Oh well, we can just call them an ‘installation view’ and leave it at that.

Anyone want to argue if Andy Warhol's soup cans are art?

At the risk of pushing this thread off topic can we consider areas such as architecture can be categorised as art? Frank Lloyd-Wright’s ‘Falling Water’ comes to mind as a profound an instantaneously affecting and inspiring instance not requiring any ‘work’ on my part to fall in love with it.